The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 36 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
A meta-analysis of projected global food demand and population at risk of hunger for the period 2010–2050
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Quantified global scenarios and projections are used to assess long-term future global food security under a range of socio-economic and climate change scenarios. Here, we conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to assess the range of future global food security projections to 2050. We reviewed 57 global food security projection and quantitative scenario studies that have been published in the past two decades and discussed the methods, underlying drivers, indicators and projections. Across five representative scenarios that span divergent but plausible socio-economic futures, the total global food demand is expected to increase by 35% to 56% between 2010 and 2050, while population at risk of hunger is expected to change by -91% to +8% over the same period. If climate change is taken into account, the ranges change slightly (+30% to +62% for total food demand and -91% to +30% for population at risk of hunger) but with no statistical differences overall. The results of our review can be used to benchmark new global food security projections and quantitative scenario studies and inform policy analysis and the public debate on the future of food.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This systematic review and meta-analysis of 57 global food security projection studies finds that total global food demand is projected to rise 35–56% between 2010 and 2050 across five SSPs, while population at risk of hunger could fall 91% or rise 8%. Climate change widens ranges slightly but does not produce statistically different overall patterns.
Key findings
- The review identified 57 relevant studies and built a database with 593 projections of food demand and 358 projections of population at risk of hunger.
- Under no climate change, total food demand is projected to change by +35% to +56%, per capita food demand by +0% to +20%, and population at risk of hunger by -91% to +8% between 2010 and 2050. With climate change, ranges are +30% to +62% for total food demand, -1% to +20% for per capita food demand, and -91% to +30% for population at risk of hunger, with no statistical difference from no-climate-change projections.
- Under SSP2, total food consumption is projected to increase by 51% (95% CI +45% to +56%), substantially lower than the often-cited FAO and Tilman et al. projections of +60% to +110%.
- SSP1 and SSP5 show the largest reductions in population at risk of hunger under no climate change (point estimates -71% to -68%), SSP3 the smallest (-11%), and SSP2 and SSP4 fall in the middle (-57% to -17%).
Methods
- Systematic literature review following EPPI-Centre guidelines, searching five bibliographic databases, Google Scholar, organization websites, experts, and snowballing; 3,667 unique studies were screened down to 57 studies published between 2000 and early 2018.
- Quantitative, comparable projections were extracted from 26 of the 57 studies for per capita food consumption, total food consumption, and population at risk of hunger; projections were harmonized and mapped to SSPs and RCPs.
- Meta-regression used separate linear mixed models for the three indicators, with fixed effects for SSP-RCP combinations and pure/derived scenario dummies, random effects for study and model, and restricted maximum likelihood via lme4/lmerTest; only baseline projections were used, after removing outliers and “No class” projections.
Limitations
- Stated: classifying studies into simulation, statistical extrapolation, or expert input was not always straightforward, and driver information should be interpreted with care because not all studies provide full model specifications; in some cases driver information was taken from other studies using the same model.
- Stated: models are continuously updated and the reviewed studies do not offer sufficient information to track changes in model design and input data; a small number of projections could not be mapped to SSP/RCP because scenarios were incompatible, and SSPs cover only four of six scenario families.
- Stated and evident: the analysis deals only with global-level projections, and regional or commodity-specific analysis was not feasible; quantitatively comparable data could be extracted from only 26 of 57 studies, so the meta-regression relies on a subset, although the authors report checks against selection bias.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
41 Own result · 22 Not checked yet · 17 Own method · 11 Own interpretation · 3 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, a pairwise comparison did not provide evidence that climate change results in significantly different patterns of food demand compared with NOCC (Supplementary Fig. 7).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Again, we did not find evidence that climate change projections are statistically different from NOCC projections (Supplementary Fig. 7).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nearly all projections point to a decrease in undernourishment in comparison with the base year.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Taking population growth into account, total food consumption increase is the lowest in SSP1 (+41%) and the highest in SSP2 (+51%).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the uncertainty related to climate change is also taken into account, the ranges of per capita (-1% to +20%) and total food demand (+30% to +62%) projections change slightly.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We identified and analysed 57 relevant studies and constructed a database with harmonized projections for two of the four global food security indicators used in the literature: global food demand (593 projections) and global population at risk of hunger (358 projections)”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We reviewed 57 global food security projection and quantitative scenario studies that have been published in the past two decades”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If climate change is taken into account, the ranges change slightly (+30% to +62% for total food demand”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The core of the models does not change over time and cross-model comparison is possible.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but with no statistical differences overall”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The core of the models does not change over time and cross-model comparison is possible.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and -91% to +30% for population at risk of hunger”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The core of the models does not change over time and cross-model comparison is possible.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 38
- Probably not a substantial claim. 32
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the confidence band of all SSPs is jointly taken into account, the plausible bandwidth of per capita food consumption becomes +0% to +20% and of total food consumption becomes +35% to +56%.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In future worlds that are characterized by fragmentation (SSP3) and inequality (SSP4), per capita consumption will increase by 4% to 7%, while in scenarios that assume sustainability (SSP1), business-as-usual development (SSP2) and rapid growth (SSP5), the increase is 12% to 16%.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Other drivers that are covered by more than half of the studies include land availability (such as protected areas and land degradation) (n = 41), diet change (n = 39), trade (n = 37) and climate change (n = 32).”
plainn = 41- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A few studies (n = 8) present alternative indicators, including protein consumption 25,26 , people at risk of protein deficiency 27 and recommended daily intake of macronutrients 26 .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [25] Billen, G., Lassaletta, L., & Garnier, J. A vast range of opportunities for feeding the world in 2050: trade-off between diet, N contamination and international trade. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/2/025001 (2015). source
- Not checked yetcites [26] Msangi, S. & Batka, M. Major trends in diets and nutrition: a global perspective to 2050. In Frontiers of Economics and Globalization 227–241 (Emerald Group Publishing, 2015). source
- Not checked yetcites [27] Medek, D. E., Schwartz, J. & Myers, S. S. Estimated effects of future atmospheric CO2 concentrations on protein intake and the risk of protein deficiency by country and region. Environ. Health Perspect. 125, 87001–87002 (2017). source
plainn = 8- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The majority of studies (n = 47) employ simulation models, while some use statistical extrapolation approaches (n = 9) that use regression techniques to estimate future food security 1,13 .Only one study 2 mainly used expert input to prepare the projections.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. & Befort, B. L. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 20260 (2011). source
- Not checked yetcites [13] Bodirsky, B. L. et al. Global food demand scenarios for the 21st century. PLoS ONE 10, e0139201 (2015). source
- Not checked yetcites [2] Alexandratos, N. & Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2012).
plainn = 57- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For a subset of the selected studies, we were able to extract and harmonize projections for the two most used indicators: per capita demand (n = 21) and population at risk of hunger (n = 14).”
plainn = 21- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Food price (n = 18) and, to a lesser extent, childhood undernutrition (n = 7) are other popular indicators.”
plainn = 18- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Global Food Security Projections Database contains 593 projections of food consumption per capita and total food consumption and 358 projections of population at risk of hunger.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nearly all SSP scenarios project an increase in per capita and global food consumption in comparison with the 2010 levels, but the relative sizes of these increases differ.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The change is highest in SSP1 and SSP5, with NOCC point estimates of -71% to -68%, while it is smallest in SSP3 (-11%), and SSP2 and SSP4 are located in the middle (-57% to -17%).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most frequently used type of models is partial equilibrium models (n = 42), followed by computable general equilibrium market simulation models (n = 28) and other types of models (such as integrated assessment, biophysical and economic; n = 11).”
plainn = 42- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Taking population growth into account, total food consumption increase is the lowest in SSP1 (+41%) and the highest in SSP2 (+51%).”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“We find that under SSP2 (which, like the FAO projections, is regarded as a business-as-usual scenario), total food consumption will increase by 51%, with a 95% confidence interval of +45% to +56%.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Only a very small number of studies indicate that they explicitly address the impacts of aquaculture (n = 2) 22,23 and urbanization (n = 1) 23 on global food supply and demand projections.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [22] Linehan, V. et al. Global food production and prices to 2050: scenario analysis under policy assumptions. In 43rd ABARES Outlook Conference (2013).
- Not checked yetcites [23] The Future of Food and Agriculture—Alternative Pathways to 2050 (FAO, 2018).
hedgedn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nearly all studies include assumptions on future population (n = 57) and income growth (n = 52), which are key drivers of food demand, and assumptions on technical change (including total factor productivity growth, crop yield increase and adoption of advanced inputs) (n = 52), which is the main driver of food supply (Fig. 2c).”
plaindirectn = 57- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A large number of the selected studies present future trends for two indicators (Fig. 2d).The first is per capita food demand, in most cases measured as the average diet per person (sum of crops, dairy, fish and meat in kcal per capita per day) (n = 37).The second indicator is global population at risk of hunger (n = 21), which implements the prevalence of undernourishment-the main statistic used”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [24] FAO, IFAD, and WFP The State of Food Insecurity in the World: The Multiple Dimensions of Food Security 2013 (FAO, 2013).
plainn = 37- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Figure 1 shows that the number of studies increased substantially over the past two decades.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The IMPACT model 14 was the most frequently used simulation model (n = 16, Fig. 2b).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14] Robinson, S. et al. The International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT): Model Description for Version 3 (IFPRI, 2015); http://ssrn.com/abstract=2741234
plainn = 16- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A comparison shows that projections for missing scenario families are positioned within the plausible range of SSP/RCP-based global food security projections and therefore do not affect our results (Supplementary Fig. 10).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The core of the models does not change over time and cross-model comparison is possible.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We used a metaregression model to analyze 317 food consumption and 200 population at risk of hunger baseline projections”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The core of the models does not change over time and cross-model comparison is possible.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The query of the scientific literature repositories resulted in 3667 studies.After abstract and full text screening, a total of 57 studies were selected to be included in the systematic literature review.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The query of the scientific literature repositories resulted in 3,667 unique studies.After abstract and full text screening, 57 studies were selected to be included in the systematic literature review (Extended Data Fig. 1; see Supplementary Section E for the list of studies).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Only a few studies 68,69 present detailed information on the shifts in diet, and in most cases the results are not comparable due to differences in the composition of food groups, making wider comparison impossible.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [68] Gouel, C. & Guimbard, H. Nutrition Transition and the Structure of Global Food Demand (CEPI, 2017).
- Not checked yetcites [69] Bijl, D. L. et al. A physically-based model of long-term food demand. Glob. Environ. Change 45, 47–62 (2017). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Using our meta-regression, we formally tested the impact of model type on global food security projections but did not find convincing evidence to support this (Supplementary Section C).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Outcomes vary across studies and models because of differences in study design and model specifications.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The projections in the sample can be regarded as random samples of all projections that could have been observed.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The database contains 593 unique projections for food consumption per capita and total food consumption and 358 projections for population at risk of hunger.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Not all studies provide full details on the model specification and hence which drivers can be incorporated in the model.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All studies incorporate multiple drivers and can produce multiple indicators.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Several of the selected studies present food security projections at the broad regional level 13,64,67 that clearly indicate different patterns and futures, which we are unable to analyse.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] Bodirsky, B. L. et al. Global food demand scenarios for the 21st century. PLoS ONE 10, e0139201 (2015). source
- Not checked yetcites [64] Popp, A. et al. Land-use futures in the Shared Socio-economic Pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 331–345 (2017). source
- Not checked yetcites [67] Hasegawa, T. et al. Risk of increased food insecurity under stringent global climate change mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 699–703 (2018). source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The comparison shows that nearly all policy shock projections fall within the estimated bandwidth, confirming our main findings.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 95% confidence intervals of the point estimates show that there is a degree of uncertainty in the projections.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our findings indicate that, under NOCC, per capita and total food demand are expected to change by +0% to +20% and +35% to +56% between 2010 and 2050, respectively, while population at risk of hunger is projected to change by -91% to +8%.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Projections that account for climate change show a somewhat wider range of outcomes (-1% to +20% for per capita food demand, +30% to +62% for total food demand and -91% to +30% for population at risk of hunger).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.
In the paper
“The increase in publications after 2009 can almost certainly be attributed to the renewed interest in global food and nutrition research that was triggered by the 2007-2008 global food price crisis 11 .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] Headey, D. & Fan, S. Anatomy of a crisis: the causes and consequences of surging food prices. Agric. Econ. 39, 375–391 (2008). source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The data for 2018 are incomplete as they only include studies that were released in the first half of the year.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“SSP3 represents an opposite world, characterized by the highest population at risk of hunger, the lowest per capita consumption and the highest total food consumption.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These figures reflect global food security outcomes in five vastly different but plausible future worlds with respect to sustainability, equality and technological development.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although it is too early to understand the full impact and consequences of the coronavirus pandemic, current developments show some resemblance with the SSP3 Regional Rivalry scenario, which is characterized by slow economic development, a focus on domestic security and sovereignty, and increasing inequality within and between nations.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Occasionally, we took information on the incorporation of driving forces from other studies in which the same model was used.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A comparison of the main characteristics between studies for which quantitative data were extracted and those for which data were missing does not suggest major structural differences between these groups and hence does not provide evidence for selection bias (Supplementary Fig. 9).”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The projections in the sample can be regarded as random samples of all projections that could have been observed.
In the paper
“The SSPs cover only four of the six scenario families identified by Van Vuuren and Carter 52 , which means that projections that belong to the two missing families (or even other not-yet-identified scenario families) are not captured by our analysis.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Van Vuuren and Carter 52
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One observation was considered as an outlier on the basis of IQR criteria and excluded from the meta-regression.”
- Also stated in: § Limitations. · plain
“The projections from Dawson et al.72 (the blue dashed line heading upwards in a) are considered outliers and are therefore excluded from the meta-regression.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Also stated in: § Limitations. · plain
In the paper
“In contrast to most other studies, which use diet projections, food consumption is approximated by total crop calories (including food and feed), resulting in much higher per capita projections.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. & Befort, B. L. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 20260 (2011). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“our analysis deals only with global-level projections.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We believe that these findings are more reflective of the current state of the literature than the often-cited range of +60% to +110% for food demand, which represents only business-as-usual scenarios.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“SSP Population projections are independent of climate change and therefore only no climate change (NOCC) projections are presented.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“SSP1 and SSP5 represent futures in which global food security will improve, reflected by a sharp decrease in population at risk of hunger, high levels of food consumption per capita and low total food consumption.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, differences in the way results are reported, such as differences in base year or definitions of indicators, potentially explain the wide range of outcomes.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we followed the guidelines for the qualified application of systematic review by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI centre, University of London, https:// eppi.ioe.ac.uk), including the preparation of a research protocol.We also prepared a PRISMA checklist and flowchart.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This shows that the FAO projections are comparable to those of other studies, but the results are highly sensitive to the selection of the base year.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Alexandratos, N. & Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2012).
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Interestingly, the latest update of the FAO study 2 also presents a projection of 54% for the global change in calories.Using a base year of 2010, this translates to an increase in consumption of 44%, which is just outside the confidence interval for SSP2.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Alexandratos, N. & Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2012).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Without mentioning the reference period, statements about future increases in food demand and production can be severely misleading.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We selected 57 global food security projection studies for further review using a predetermined systematic review protocol (Extended Data Fig. 1, Supplementary Information and Methods).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A comparison shows that for all three indicators, almost all 'No class' projections fall within the estimated plausible range of global food security projections (Supplementary Fig. 10).Hence, excluding them probably had little impact on our results.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The literature screening was done in two phases.A first selection was made by screening the title and abstract, followed by a full text screening for studies that were identified as being relevant.In case of doubt, the study was evaluated by a second reviewer and, if needed, further discussed by the research team.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, in the light of the current coronavirus pandemic, which undoubtedly will have a lasting impact on all aspects of future global development (including food supply and demand), business-as-usual scenarios can no longer be considered plausible or realistic.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All data and code will be publicly available to reproduce the results.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The complete code required to reproduce all figures as well as the meta-analysis is publicly available at the Zenodo repository: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4911251.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The authors declare no competing interests.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The combination of data and code ensures that all results can be reproduced.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The database with information from the 57 selected studies as well as the Global Food Security Projections Database are publicly available at the Zenodo repository: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4911252.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.
“We assumed that projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (that is, belonging to the same 'family') can be directly compared.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Outcomes vary across studies and models because of differences in study design and model specifications.
“We added random effects for both study and model as we assume that, although comparable, outcomes will vary across both studies and models because of differences in study design and model specifications.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In studies where models are linked with other models, the model is still comparable to its stand-alone version.
“In such cases, we assumed that the model is still comparable to its stand-alone version.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The projections in the sample can be regarded as random samples of all projections that could have been observed.
“The projections in our sample can be regarded as random samples of all projections that could have been observed.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The core of the models does not change over time and cross-model comparison is possible.
“Nonetheless, we think it is reasonable to assume that the core of the models does not change over time and that cross-model comparison is possible.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“food demand which is expected to increase by 35%-56% to feed a population of nearly ten billion by 2050 (van Dijk et al., 2021).”
From Genetic resources and precise gene editing for targeted improvement of barley abiotic stress tolerance (2023) · cites this paper as van Dijk et al., 2021
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ Overview of studies.
“Taking population growth into account, total food consumption increase is the lowest in SSP1 (+41%) and the highest in SSP2 (+51%).”
§ Uncertainty and consistency in global food security projections.
“SSP3 represents an opposite world, characterized by the highest population at risk of hunger, the lowest per capita consumption and the highest total food consumption.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Global Food Security Projections Database.
“The historical data are from FAO 70 .”
§ References
“70. Bijl, D. L. et al. A physically-based model of long-term food demand. Glob. Environ. Change 45, 47-62 (2017).”
Citations
Cites
Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01 · Cited by 86,835
lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v082.i13 · Cited by 24,346
Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R
Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N., Saveliev, A. A., & Smith, G. M. (2009) · Statistics for Biology and Health · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-87458-6 · Cited by 17,963
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People
Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S. M., & Toulmin, C. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1185383 · Cited by 11,943
Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems
Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., Garnett, T., Tilman, D., DeClerck, F., Wood, A., et al. (2019) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31788-4 · Cited by 10,880
The representative concentration pathways: an overview
van Vuuren, D. P., Edmonds, J., Kainuma, M., Riahi, K., Thomson, A., Hibbard, K., Hurtt, G. C., Kram, T., Krey, V., Lamarque, J.-F., et al. (2011) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z · Cited by 7,741
Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture
Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J., & Befort, B. L. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1116437108 · Cited by 7,692
Riahi, K., van Vuuren, D. P., Kriegler, E., Edmonds, J., O’Neill, B. C., Fujimori, S., Bauer, N., Calvin, K., Dellink, R., Fricko, O., et al. (2017) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009 · Cited by 6,607
The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2026
(2026) · FAO · doi:10.4060/cd8306en · Cited by 3,770
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Robinson, S. et al. The International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT): Model Description for Version 3 (IFPRI, 2015); http://ssrn.com/abstract=2741234
- Linehan, V. et al. Global food production and prices to 2050: scenario analysis under policy assumptions. In 43rd ABARES Outlook Conference (2013).
- Feed the world: a challenge and an opportunity. The John Deere Journal https://johndeerejournal.com/2015/12/smallholder-farmers-big-challenges (2015).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Climate change impacts on plant pathogens, food security and paths forward
Singh, B. K., Delgado-Baquerizo, M., Egidi, E., Guirado, E., Leach, J. E., Liu, H., & Trivedi, P. (2023) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/s41579-023-00900-7 · Cited by 1,334
Global soil pollution by toxic metals threatens agriculture and human health
Hou, D., Jia, X., Wang, L., McGrath, S. P., Zhu, Y., Hu, Q., Zhao, F. J., Bank, M. S., O’Connor, D., & Nriagu, J. O. (2025) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adr5214 · Cited by 1,121
Climate change impacts on crop yields
Rezaei, E. E., Webber, H. A., Asseng, S., Boote, K. J., Durand, J. L., Ewert, F. A., Martre, P., & MacCarthy, D. S. (2023) · Nature Reviews Earth & Environment · doi:10.1038/s43017-023-00491-0 · Cited by 907
“With cropland expansion posing unacceptable threats to biodiversity and the environment 2,4 , increased production must primarily come from higher crop yields, with improved cultivars and/or the closing of yield gaps associated with suboptimal crop management 5 .”
BackgroundRethinking Global Food Demand for 2050
Falcon, W., Naylor, R., & Shankar, N. (2022) · Population and Development Review · doi:10.1111/padr.12508 · Cited by 313
AI for UAV-Assisted IoT Applications: A Comprehensive Review
Cheng, N., Wu, S., Wang, X., Yin, Z., Li, C., Chen, W., & Chen, F. (2023) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2023.3268316 · Cited by 330
Metadata
- Authors
- van Dijk, M., Morley, T., Rau, M. L., & Saghai, Y.
- Affiliations
- Wageningen University & Research (NL)
- The Millennium Project (US)
- Venue
- Nature Food
- Published
- 2021-07-21
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 494-501
- ISSN
- 2662-1355 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3186111258
- Semantic Scholar
- c39cb1d30420c0af70f0b1f72ace1c05a9d06e84
- Cited by
- 2,339
- References
- 58
- Citations by year
- 2026: 541 · 2025: 713 · 2024: 578 · 2023: 344 · 2022: 149 · 2021: 11
- FWCI
- 18.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature Food (publishedVersion)
- Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Twente Research Information (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
- IIASA PURE (International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis) (submittedVersion)
- University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Wageningen University and Research Centre
- Johns Hopkins Global Food Ethics Berman Institute of Bioethics and Policy Program
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Security and Socioeconomic Dynamics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Climate change impacts on agriculture
- Keywords
- global food security, food demand projections, hunger, climate change impacts on food security, socio-economic scenarios, future food demand, 2050 projections
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
